This blog addresses the fatal flaw at the core of capitalism as a system of human psycho-socio-political-economic collective self-reproduction, a flaw which ultimately renders it a self-DIS-organizing, self-destroying system -- as is becoming increasingly evident. It also details the successor system to capitalism, the new system that represents the higher, positive way forward for humanity: Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, or EQUITISM.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Version 3 --F.E.D. Publishes Expanded Version of ‘Hegel’s
‘‘‘Algorithm’’’ forDialectic’,
Methodological Essay by Hermes de Nemores, Part 1, version 3.

Dear Readers,

FoundationEncyclopedia Dialectic
[F.E.D.] has just published expanded version 3 of Part 1 of a new dialectical-methodological essay by F.E.D.
Secretary-General Hermes de Nemores, Chief Administrative Officer of the Foundation, via the www.dialectics.org web site.

This essay is entitled ‘Hegel’s ‘‘‘Algorithm’’’ forDialectic’.

I have pasted in, below, the expanded Table of Contents of version 3, and its Preface, for your

The Nature of theConclusion of aDomain-specific, Domain-interpretedDialecticalCategorial Progression ‘Meta-Model’.

Evaluation of the Scope
and Limitations of Hegel’s ‘‘‘Algorithm’’’
for Dialectic.

About the Author.

Preface.

This essay, entitled ‘Hegel’s‘‘‘Algorithm’’’forDialectic’, is the first part of our planned suite of threemethodological essays.

These essays culminate in setting forth the methodology that we use for the application of our‘mathematics
of dialectics’.

This ‘mathematics of dialectics’
was originallydeveloped by our co-founder, Karl Seldon.

Since our founding, this ‘mathematics
of dialectics’
has been in ongoingdevelopment
by the F.E.D.
research collective as a whole, under the direction of Karl Seldon.

The remaining two parts of this planned suite of essays are
entitled, respectively, ‘Marx’sDialecticalMethod’, by Aoristos
Dyosphainthos, and ‘UniversalAlgorithmicHeuristicMethod’, by our co-founder.

Introduction.

When
we
of F.E.D. come to Hegel’s work, our
work is a matter of the immanent critique of a sub-scientific, capitalist-philosophicalideology.

In
the specific case of Hegel’s work, this involves a mission of rescuing and
salvaging treasures of dialectical insight from out of the ruins of Hegel’s
mystifications, of his reifications, of his hypostatizations, of his
concept-fetishisms, and of his ‘subject-object inversions’.

Hegel’s
work is rampant with the kind of ‘pseudo-agent positings’ which such verbal
‘subject-object inversions’ entail.

Moreover,
our
work, with respect to Hegel’s work, is also a mission of rescue for his genuine
insights, from out of the ruling-class-power-propping ideological theism to
which Hegel had to feign allegiance in order to keep his job [cf. Newton’s hiding of his unitarianism vis-à-vis
the prevailing trinitarianism
of his time and clime].

Our
objective in this mission is to extract Hegel’s potential scientific contribution to
the discernment, to the derivation, and to the construction, of a ‘‘‘universal
method’’’ for the «mathesis universalis»,
i.e., for learnablesubject-matter in general; for the discovery, and also for the
optimal presentation of such discovery, combined.

Engels
took a “cheap shot” at Hegel’s work when he implied, in Engels’s Ludwig
Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, that, about
the “Absolute Idea”, in the final section, of that title, in Hegel’s «Logik»,
Hegel had “absolutely nothing to say”.

On
the contrary, a rich content, albeit a content brief in expression -- for Hegel
-- resides there.

Hegel
may have despised, in general, any idea of a ‘philosophical algorithm’ modeled
on the mathematics of his time.He may
have railed against any idea of a methodology that smacked of mathematics, as
he knew it -- if applied to that which was, for Hegel, the ultimate domain of the
human spirit, and of human knowledge:to
Philosophy.

Hegel
may have disdained any idea of a heuristic recipe “externally” guiding
philosophical inquiry, and/or guiding the presentation of the distilled fruitions of
such inquiry.He may have rejected out
of hand the very possibility of any successful “method” imposing forms upon
such content; upon the subject-matter of such inquiry and of such presentation,
from outside of it, from without it, after the manner of “external reflection”,
i.e., rather than being driven solely
by that content itself.

Be
that as it may notwithstanding, Hegel did
provide succinct accounts of his general procedure for dialectic presentation.

In
the sequel, we
shall review those accounts in detail, and describe the ways in which their
prescriptions are captured, and in a unified way, in the mathematical
rules-system, in the generic interpretation of that rules-system, and in the
Seldon-function algorithm, for the NQ arithmetic, F.E.D.’s ‘First Arithmetic for
Dialectic’.

A Note on Notation.For more information regarding the definitions
and the ‘ideographical etymology’ of the special arithmetical and algebraical
symbols employed herein, click on the following URLs --